Rodriguez Licea et al v. Curacao Drydock Co - Order Denying Motion for Stay
Transcript of Rodriguez Licea et al v. Curacao Drydock Co - Order Denying Motion for Stay
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 06-22128-CIV-KING
ALBERTO JUSTO RODRIGUEZ LICEA,
FERNANDO ALON SO HERNANDEZ,
AND LUIS ALBERTO CASANOVA TOLEDO,
Plaintiffs,
CUM CAO DRYDOCK COM PANY, INC.,
a/k/a CUM CAOSE DOKM AATSCHAPPIJ NV,
a/k/a CDM NV,
Defendant,
/
ORDER DENYING RENEW ED M OTION FOR STAY
THIS M ATTER comes before the Court upon the Country of Curaçao and the
Kingdom of the Netherlands' Renewed Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (DE #267), filed
June 1, 2012. Therein,The Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands argue
thatthe above-styled action should be stayedpending the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals'
ruling on their M otion for Rehearing En Banc on the Circuit Court's dismissal of their
interlocutory appeal of this Court's November 7, 201 1 Order granting limitedjurisdictional
discovery to verify allegations of an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28
U.S.C. j 1602 ((TSIA'') and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. The Court is fully
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 1 of 17
briefed on the m atter.l Upon consideration of the Parties' argum ents as set forth in the
pleadings, the Court finds that the Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands'
appeal is frivolous to preclude entry of a stay.
1. Background
Plaintiffs are three Cuban nationals who were abducted from Cuba, trafficked to
Curaçao, and then forced to work at Defendant Curaçao Drydock Company's (ûscuraçao
Drydock'') shipyard underdeplorable conditions. Upon arrival in Curaçao, Plaintiffs
passports were seized. Plaintiffs, along with scores of other workers, were held on the
grounds of Curaçao Drydock and were only allowed to leave the grounds under the guard of
Cuban governm ent agents. They were forced to work in slave-like conditions for 1 12 hours
per week, performing drydock services on ships and oi1 platforms. Curaçao Drydock
admitted during discovery that it did not pay Plaintiffs directly for their services. (Esser Aff.
! 1 1, DE #41-3; Hernandez Aff. ! 1 1, DE //4 14). Instead, the payment owed Plaintiffs was
credited to a debt owed by Cubato Curaçao Drydock. (EsserAff. ! 1 1, DE //41-3; Hernandez
Aff. ! 1 1, DE #414). This forced labor scheme continued for a period of fifteen years
pursuant to an agreem ent between Cuba and Curaçao Drydock to satisfy a debt. Plaintiffs
suffered severe physical, psychological, and emotional injuries as a result of their forced
servitude. Eventually, Plaintiffs escaped and m ade it to the United States.
In 2006, Plaintiffs filed suit against Curaçao Drydock under the Alien Tort Statute,
1 Plaintiffs filed a Response (DE #269) on Jtme 15, 2012, and The Countly of Curaçaoand the Kingdom of the Netherlands filed a Reply (DE #273) on June 21, 2012.
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 2 of 17
28 U.S.C. j 1350 (2000), and the Racketeering lntluenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
18 U.S.C. j 1962(b) (2000). After a denial of Curaçao Drydock's Motion to Dismiss for
forum non conveniens (DE #64), Curaçao Drydock abandoned its defense of this lawsuit
during the discovery phase, and the Court entered default against it on the issue of liability
on August 8, 2008. (DE #101). After holding a bench trial on damages in which Curaçao
Drydock declined to appear, the Court entered Final Judgment in the amount of $80 million
in favor of Plaintiffs. Licea v. Curaçao Drydock Co., 584 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (S.D. Fla, 2008).
Onlanuary 5, 2010, Plaintiffs initiated supplementaryproceedings pursuantto Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 69($2 and Florida Statute j 56.29($3 to implead the governments
of the Island Tenitory of Curaçao and the Netherlands Antilles, and add them as Judgment
2 Rule 69(a) provides, in relevant part:
A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, tmless the court directsotherwise. The procedure on execution- and in proceedings supplementary to and
in aid ofjudgment or execution- must accord with the procedure of the state wherethe court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1).
3 Section 56.29(1) provides:
When any person or entity holds an tmsatisfiedjudgment orjudgment lien obtainedunder chapter 55, the judgment holder or judgment lienholder may file an affidavitso stating, identifying, if applicable, the issuing court, the case number, and the
unsatisfied amount of the judgment or judgment lien, including accrued costs andinterest, and stating that the execution is valid and outstanding, and thereupon the
judgment holder or judgment lienholder is entitled to these proceedingssupplementary to execution.
Fla. Stat. j 56.29(1).
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 3 of 17
Debtors on an alter-ego theory, (DE #120). On April 6, 2010, attorney Guy Hanison filed a
Notice of Limited Appearance to assert immunity and contestjurisdiction. (DE //127). The
following week, M agistrate Judge Bandstra held a hearing, at which M r. Harrison appeared
as counsel on behalf of Curaçao and the Netherlands Antilles. (DE #131). On April 20, 2010,
M agistrate Judge Bandstra granted the M otion in part, permitting Plaintiffs to implead
Curaçao and the Netherlands Antilles, but finding it would be premature to rule on the
portion of the Motion seeking to add the Governments as judgment debtors. (DE #133).
Curaçao and the Netherlands Antilles then moved to dism iss the supplementary
proceedings on the ground that they are immune from suit under the FSIA. (DE #143).
Specifically, Curaçao and the Netherlands Antilles argued that Plaintiffs had failed to plead
any exception to the FSIA . The M otion to Dismiss was referred to the Honorable Ted E.
Bandstra. (DE #155). On December 14, 2010, Magistrate Judge Bandstra held a hearing on
the M otion to Dism iss, at which M r. Harrison appeared as counsel for Curaçao and the
Netherlands Antilles. (DE #164).On May 27, 201 1, this Court entered an Order affirming in
part M agistrate Judge Bandstra's R&R on the M otion to Dismiss, finding that Plaintiffs had
failed to plead a Section 16 10 exception to the FSIA, and dism issing Plaintiffs'
supplementary proceedings without prejudice to file an Amended Motion to Commence
Proceedings Supplementary. (DE #180).
Less than two months later, Plaintiffs filed the Amended M otion to Am end the
Caption and Add the Supplemental Defendants as Judgm ent Debtors or, in the Alternative,
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 4 of 17
to Take Specitic Discovery from the Supplemental Defendants. (Am. Motion, DE #183).
Therein, Plaintiffs sought to add the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Country of
Curaçao4 asjudgment debtors.Altematively,plaintiffs sought limitedjurisdictional discovery
to verify the facts alleged in support of a Section 1610 exception to immunity. Plaintiffs
alleged the following in support of the Amended M otion.
ln 1983, Curaçao took control over Curaçao Drydock. (Am. Motion !! 22, 32, DE
#183; Hoppel Dep. 39:1-20, DE #184-8). As of August 2009, Curaçao owned 50% of the
shares of Curaçao Drydock. The other 50% was owned by CDM Holding N.V.- a company
that is owned 100% by Curaçao. (Am. Motion ! 23, DE #183). By 2010, the Netherlands
Antilles owned 30% of Curaçao Drydock, and Curaçao owned the remaining 70%. (Am.
Motion ! 28, DE #183). Until October 2007, Curaçao Drydock held bank accounts with
Chase in New York.Customers of Curaçao Drydock located in the United States wired
payments to Curaçao Drydock's bank accounts at Chase in New York. (Am. Motion !!
33-34, DE #183). The Governments currently use bank accounts in the United States to
operate Curaçao Drydock. (Am. Motion ! 36, DE #183). Curaçao uses Girobank N.V. for
the commercial business of Curaçao Drydock. Girobank N .V. is a bank located in Curaçao
4 On October 10, 2010, a political and constitutional realignment with the Kingdom of the
Netherlands occurred that dissolved the Island Territory of Curaçao and the Country of the
Netherlands Antilles. As part of this realignment, the Country of Curaçao was created as an
autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Through the statutes effectuating
the realignm ent, a11 civil rights and obligations of the Country of the Netherlands Antilles and the
lsland Territory of Curaçao not duly specified were transferred to the Country of Curaçao. The
Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Country of Curaçao contend that the Country of Curaçao
should now be deemed the real party in interest, as legal successor to the former entities.
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 5 of 17
and owned by Curaçao. Girobank N .V. transads business with ING Bank and Citibank in
the United States for the commercial business of Curaçao Drydock. (Am. Motion ! 36, DE
f/lst3l.lflattenbergMarine Associates, aFloridacorporation, is an agentof Curaçao Drydock
is in the United States. (Am. Motion ! 37, DE //183). Curaçao and the Kingdom of the
Netherlands operate a government-ownedpostal system that is registered as a limited liability
company in the State of Florida. (Am. Motion !( 37, DE #183; DE #184-15).
For three-and-a-half months, neither the Country of Curaçao nor the Kingdom of the
Netherlands everrespondedto or denied Plaintiffs allegations in support of the FSIA Section
1610 exception. Eventually, onN ovember 7, 201 1, this Court entered an Orderthatpermitted
Plaintiffs to take limitedjurisdictional discovery to determine if the Country of Curaçao or
the Kingdom of the Netherlands used assets to facilitate Curaçao Drydock's commercial
operations so as to determine whether an exception to the FSIA exists. (DE # 185). In so
ordering, the Court found that Plaintiffs had sufficiently pled a primafacie Section 1610
exception to the FSIA. (DE #183, at 5-6). This Court also found that until Plaintiffs were
able to verify the exception with limited jurisdictional discovery, it was premature for the
Courtto add the Country of Curaçao orthe Kingdom of the Netherlands asjudgment-debtors
or to make a determination on sovereign immunity. (DE #183, at 7).
On November 9, 201 1, the Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the N etherlands
filed a Motion for Relief from the Court's order permitting limitedjurisdictional discovery.
(DE //186). Therein, counsel for Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 6 of 17
urgedthe Courtto consider an extremely untimely response on behalf of Country of Curaçao
andtheKingdom of theNetherlands, and cited counsel's errorto excusethethree-and-a-half-
month period during which Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands did not
respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion. (DE #186 !! 1-2). This Court denied Country of
Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands'M otion for Relief by an Order dated
Novemberl7, 201 1. (DE #197). This Court then denied reconsideration on the basis that
Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands could have and should have
presented their legal and factual argum ents during the three-and-a-half month period in
between Plaintiffs' July 18, 201 1 motion and the Court's November 7, 201 1 order granting
limitedjurisdictional discovery. (DE #197).
On December 9, 201 1 and December 12, 20 1 1, respectively, the Country of Curaçao,
the Netherlands Antilles, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands filed Notices of Appeal. (DE
#208; DE #214). Days later, the Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands
filed Motions for Stay Pending Appeal. (DE #216; DE #219). Before this Court entered an
order on the M otions for Stay, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dism issed the
Government's interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (DE #263). This Court then
denied the Motions for Stay as moot. (DE #265).
Following the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' dismissal for lack of jurisdiction,
the Governm ents moved for rehearing en banc. On June 1, 2012, the Country of Curaçao and
the Kingdom of the Netherlands filed the instant Renewed M otion for Stay Pending Appeal.
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 7 of 17
(DE #267).
II. Legal Standard
Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ($TSlA''), foreign states are
presumptively immune from thejurisdiction of the courts of the United States. 28 U.S.C. j
1604 ($$(A1 foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States and of the states except as provided in (exceptions provided in later sections of the
FSIA).''). There are, however, a number of exceptions to this presumption of immunity. See
Butler v. Sukhoi Co., 579 F.3d 1307, 1312-13 (1 1th Cir. 2009). One such exception is the
Sscommercial activity'' exception of Section 1610(a)(2),5 which provides an exception to the
immunity of a foreign state's property from attachment or execution:
The property in the United States of a foreign state . . . used for a commercial
activity in the United States, shall not be immune from attachm ent in aid of
execution, or from execution,upon ajudgment entered by a court of the UnitedStates or of a State . . . if . . . the property is or was used for the commercial
activity upon which the claim is based.
28 U.S.C. j 1610(a)(2).
To execute judgment on a sovereign's property pursuant to the Section 1610(a)(2)
dscommercial activity'' exception, a plaintiff must: 1.) identify specific assets, such as
accounts or funds, of the sovereign; 2.) that are located within the United States; and 3.) used
for a ticommercial activity'' within the United States; as well as 4.) demonstrate that the
Gûcommercial activity'' is the sam e activity upon which the plaintiffs claim is based. 28
5 This Court has previously ruled that the Stcommercial activity'' exception of Section
1610(a)(2) is the exception applicable to the above-styled action. (DE #180).
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 8 of 17
U.S.C. j 1610(a)(2); see also Walters v. Indus. and Commercial Bank ofchina, L td., 651
F.3d 280, 297 (2d Cir. 20 1 1), As the plaintiff has the burden to identify assets that come
within the Section 16 10(a)(2) exception, courts have recognized the necessity of limited
jurisdictional discovery to establish whether a claim comes within the exception. See, e.g.,
Arriba L td. v. Petroleos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (5th Cir. 1992) (recognizing the role
of limited jurisdictional discovery (dto verify allegations of specific facts crucial to an
immunity determination''); Filus v. f ot Polish Airlines, 907 F.2d 1328, 1332-33 (2d Cir.
1990) (recognizing the need for limitedjurisdictional discovery to establish exception to the
FSIA). Before a court grants limited jurisdictional discovery as to whether the exception
applies, a plaintiff must first plead the prima facie elements of the exception. See, e.g.,
Butler, 579 F,3d at 1313 (denying jurisdictional discovery where plaintiff failed to plead
elements of exception to presumption of sovereign immunity). Once a plaintiff pleads the
prima facie elements of an exception, then those allegations are entitled to verification
through limited jurisdictional discovery. See id. at 1314.
Whether a district court's grant of limited jurisdictional discovery is immediately
appealable hinges on whether the allowance of limitedjurisdictional discovery is akin to a
denial of a sovereign's claim of immunity. See, e.g., id. at 131 1 (;élt is well-settled that a
court of appeals hasjurisdiction over interlocutory orders denying claims of immunity under
the FS1A.''). çl-f'he defense of sovereign or qualified immunity protects govemment officials
not only from having to stand trial, but from having to bear the burdens attendant to
9
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 9 of 17
litigation, including pretrial discovery.'' Blinco v. Grcen Tree Serv., LL C, 366 F.3d 1249,
1252 (1 1th Cir. 2004).
Typically, a district courtproperly stays litigation, including discovery, pending appeal
of a denial of sovereign immunity. 1d. at 1252; see also Bradford-scott Data Corp., lnc. v.
Physician Computer Network, Inc., 128 F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir.1997). An interlocutory
appeal of a denial of sovereign immunity ordinarily divests the district court ofjurisdiction
to proceed with the litigationpending its resolution. Ungar v. PalestineLiberation Org., 402
F.3d 274, 293 (1st Cir. 2005); see also Griggs v. Provident ConsumerDiscount Co., 459 U.S.
56, 58 (1982) ($ûThe filing of a notice of appeal is an event ofjurisdictional significance it
confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over
those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.'').
A stay pending an interlocutory appeal, however, is notalways automatic. In
particular, $$a stay need not be granted at the outset if the appeal is frivolous.'' Blincos 366
F.3d at 1252. Both the district court and the appellate court have the authority to declare an
appeal frivolous. 1d. at 1252. A court may deem an appeal frivolous if the ground for the
appeal is çdso baseless that it does not invoke appellate jurisdiction,'' or where (tthe district
judge has not finally resolved the question of immunity.'' See generally Apostol v. Gallion,
870 F.2d 1335, 1339 (7th Cir. 1989) (discussing frivolous appeals in the context of qualified
immunity from 42 U.S.C. j1983 claims). lf the appeal is declared frivolous, Cçthe district
court may carry on with the case.'' Bradford-scott Data Corp., 128 F.3d at 506.
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 10 of 17
111. Analysis
The only issue before the Court is whether the above-styled action should be stayed
pending the resolution of the Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands'
Motion forRehearing EnBanc ofthis Court's orders granting limitedjurisdictionaldiscovel
to verify allegations of an exception to the FSIA and denying reconsideration. The Country
of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands argue that the above-styled action should
be stayed because their appeal automatically divests this Court of jurisdiction. (DE #216,
!3).6 In response, Plaintiffs argue that the above-style action should not be stayed because
the appeal is frivolous under Blinco. (DE #225). Upon consideration of the Parties'
arguments as set forth in the pleadings and at oral argument, the Court finds thatjurisdiction
is properly before this Court where the appeals taken by the Country of Curaçao and the
Kingdom of the Netherlands are frivolous because the appeal is prem ature as the Court has
yet to rule on the issue of sovereign im munity and the Court limited discovery to establishing
an evidentiary basis for an exception to the FSIA.
A. The November 7, 2011 Order Did Not Rule on Sovereign Imm unity
In the Renewed M otion for Stay, the Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the
Netherlands argue that Eleventh Circuit precedent requires that the proceedings before this
Court be stayed because an appeal taken to determine whether an exception to sovereign
6 The Country of Ctlraçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands incorporate by reference
the arguments presented in the original Motions for Stay Pending Appeal (DE #216, 219, & 230).(DE #267, !7).
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 11 of 17
immunity exists goes to the subject matterjurisdiction of the district court to hear this matter
in the first instance. (DE #216, !3). See Butler, 579 F.3d at 131 1 (dtlt is well-settled that a
court of appeals hasjurisdiction over interlocutory orders denying claims of immunity under
the FSIA.''). As applied to the instantmatter, the Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the
Netherlands argue, despite their decision not to respond to Plaintiffs' Amended M otion or
to file a motion to dismiss the supplementary proceedings, that this Court's grant of limited
jurisdictional discovery was akin to a ruling on the legal sufficiency of Plaintiffs' claims so
as to divest this Court of jurisdiction where the Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficiently an
exception to immunity under the FSIA,. (DE #216, !2). In response, Plaintiffs argue that
contrary to the Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands' characterization of
the Court's November 7, 201 1 Order and the issues on appeal, this Court has yet to rule on
the Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands' sovereign immunity. To
resolve this issue, the Court turns to its Order of November 7, 201 1.
OnNovember 7, 201 1, the Court entered an orderthat deniedplaintiffs' motionto add
the Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands asjudgment defendants, while
permitting limitedjurisdictional discovery to determine whether there existed an exception
to the Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands'presumed sovereign
immunity under the FSIA. (DE #185). Specifically, while the Court did not make a finding
as to whether jurisdiction exists over the Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the
Netherlands (DE #185, at 7), the Court did find that:
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 12 of 17
Ellnthe Amended Motion, Plaintiffs have made the changes necessaryto pleadan exception to FSIA . Plaintiffs have appropriately alleged that the
Governments can be sued under 28 U.S.C. j 16 10(a)(2), the statutoryexception to the FSIA, by identifying property belonging to the Governments
located in the United States which is now or was used in conjunction with theunderlying claim. . . . These allegations, if true, would provide a basis for
jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1610.
(DE #185, at 5). To determine whether an exception to the FSIA exists, the Court ordered
discovery (tlimited to the essentials necessary to determine the assets used by the
Governm ents to fund, operate, or otherwise facilitate the Drydock's com mercial enterprise.''
(DE #185, at 7). The Order expressly advised the Parties that the ûçcourt has not decided
whether jurisdiction even exists over the Supplemental Defendants.'' (DE # 185, at 7).
Accordingly, the Court finds, given the plain language of the Court's November 7, 201 1
Order, that a stay is not autom atic because the Court did not rule on the issue of sovereign
immunity.
The Court also notes that the Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands
have yet to ;le a m otion to dismiss the am ended m otion and they did not respond in a timely
manner to Plaintiffs' motion to take limitedjurisdictional discovery. Until this Court makes
a ruling on Plaintiffs' argued exception to the FSIA, it is premature for the Court of Appeals
to address the matter, Accordingly, the Court finds that the Country of Curaçao and the
Kingdom of the Netherlands' appeal of a denial of sovereign immunity is frivolous because
the Court has yet to resolve the question of im munity in the first instance. See, e.g., Apostol,
870 F.2d at 1339 (isa notice of appeal may be so baseless that it does not invoke appellate
13
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 13 of 17
jurisdiction . . . gwhereq the districtjudge has not finally resolved the question of immunitf').
B. Limited Jurisdictional Discovery Does Not Infringe on Sovereign Immunity
The Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the Netherlands contend that any
discovery, including limited jurisdictional discovery, infringes on their presumptive
sovereign immunity. (DE #216, at 3). Generally, sovereign immunity shields defendants not
only fromjudgment, but from the litigation process, including discovery. See, e.g., Rubin v.
The Islamic Republic oflran, 637 F.3d 783, 785 (7th Cir. 201 1) (holding district court's
order perm itting dsgeneral asset discovery'' prior to ruling on alleged exception to the FSIA
infringed on sovereign immunity). The instant situation, however, is an exception to the
general rule because the Court has ordered discovery for the lim ited purpose of establishing
whether an exception to the presumption of imm unity under the FSIA exists as opposed to
t'general asset discovery.'' (DE #185, at 7). To accept the view that this limited grant of
jurisdictional discovery infringes on sovereign immunity would render exceptions to the
FSIA meaningless by making it impossible (absent an admission from the defendant
sovereign) for a plaintiff to present a court with an evidentiary basis for an exception.
Accordingly, the Court finds that its grantof limited jurisdictional discovery does not
infringe on sovereign immunity.
IV. Conclusion
As a final note, the Courtwould be remiss notto point outthe Country of Curaçao and
the Kingdom of the Netherlands' failure to comply with the procedures of the Court. The
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 14 of 17
Country of Curaçao and the Kingdom of the N etherlands waited to raise sovereign immunity
until almost four months after Plaintiffs filed the amended motion for limitedjurisdictional
discovery. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, alongwithmany courts of appeals around
the country, looks disfavorably on diDefendants who abuse the pretrial process through such
stalling . . . .'' See Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1306 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding
defendants waived right to raise qualified immunity at pre-trial proceedings); see also, e.g.,
Ungar, 402 F.3d at 293(finding that although foreign sovereign immunity is usually
immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, Sssovereign immunity is (not) a
trump card that m ay be held in reserve until a defendant sees fit to play it, thus enabling the
defendant to stop the litigation in its tracks at a time of its choosing''); Apostol, 870 F.2d at
1339 (finding that Cldefendants who play games withthe district court's schedule forfeittheir
entitlement to a pre-trial appeal'' on immunity).
Accordingly, having consideredtheparties' pleadings and filings andbeing otherwise
advised, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED the Country of Curaçao
and the Kingdom of the Netherlands' Renewed Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (DE #267)
be, and the same is hereby, DENIED .
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice
Building and United States Courthouse in M iami, Florida on this 25th day of June, 2012.
<
46f.@-, :zr
AMES LAWRENCE KING
.S. DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FL DA
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 15 of 17
CC:
Counselfor Plaintts
John Thornton
do Cnmpo & Thornton, P.A.100 Southeast Second Street
Suite 2700
M iami, FL 33131
305-358-6600
Fax: 305-358-6601
Email: [email protected]
O rlando do Campo
do Campo & Thornton, P.A.M iami Tower
100 S.E. 2nd Street
Suite 2700
M iam i, FL 33131
305-358-6600
Fax: 305-358-6601
Email: [email protected]
Stuart Z. Grossman
Grossman Roth PA
2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
Suite 1150
Coral Gables, FL 33134
305-442-8666
Fax: 285-1668
Email: [email protected]
Casey D. Laffey
Reed Smith LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212-521-5400
Fax: 212-521-5450
Email: [email protected]
Eric A. Schaffer
Reed Smith LLP
435 6th Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886
16
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 16 of 17
412-288-4584
Email: [email protected]
Jordan W . Siev
Reed Smith LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212-521-5400
Fax: 212-521-5450
Email: [email protected]
Scott D. Baker
Reed Smith LLP
101 Second Street
Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-543-8700
Fax: 415-391-8269
Email: [email protected]
Sdh Eric M iles
Grossm an Roth, P.A.
2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd.
Suite 1 150
M iami, FL 33134
305-442-8666
Fax: 305-285-1668
Email: [email protected]
Counselfor the Kingdom ofthe Netherlands and the Countr.v ofcuraçao
Guy W illiam Harrison
Etcheveny & Hanison LLP
150 S Pine lsland Road
Suite 105
Plantation, FL 33324-2667
954-370-1681
Fax: 370-1682
Email: [email protected]
Case 1:06-cv-22128-JLK Document 277 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2012 Page 17 of 17